A challenge to the jurisdiction of the court seised, raised in the defendant's first submission in the alternative to other procedural objections in that same submission, is not acceptance of that court's jurisdiction and does not prorogate jurisdiction under Article 24. When the defendant is domiciled in an EU Member State, an action for a declaration of non-infringement under Article 81(b) of Regulation No 6/2002 must be brought before the Community design courts of that Member State - except where jurisdiction has been prorogated under Article 23 or Article 24 of Regulation No 44/2001, and subject to the rules on lis pendens and related actions in those regulations. Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 does not apply to actions for a declaration of non-infringement under Article 81(b) of Regulation No 6/2002. Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 also does not apply to actions for a declaration of abuse of a dominant position and of unfair competition that are connected to actions for declaration of non-infringement, in so far as granting those applications presupposes that the action for declaration of non-infringement is allowed.

In a dispute over non-performance of a contractual obligation, where the claimant sues in the courts of the Member State where the defendant has its seat, those courts may derive jurisdiction from Article 24 of Regulation No 44/2001 if the defendant does not contest their jurisdiction - even though the contract gives jurisdiction to the courts of a third country.

In a dispute between parties to a contract containing a clause conferring jurisdiction on the courts of a third country, the court of the Member State where the defendant has its seat, once seised, may not decline jurisdiction of its own motion if the defendant does not contest that court's jurisdiction.

If a national court appoints, under national legislation, a representative in absentia for a defendant who has not been served with the documents instituting proceedings because his place of domicile is unknown, an appearance entered by that representative does not count as an appearance entered by that defendant for the purposes of Article 24 of Regulation No 44/2001.

A statement of opposition to a European order for payment that does not challenge the jurisdiction of the court of the Member State of origin is not an entering of an appearance within Article 24 of Regulation No 44/2001. That remains so even if the defendant sets out arguments on the substance of the case in that statement of opposition.

Even where the rules in Section 3 of Chapter II were not complied with, the court seised must accept jurisdiction if the defendant enters an appearance without contesting jurisdiction. That appearance amounts to tacit prorogation of jurisdiction.